EN BANC

[A.M. No. P-94-1067. January 30, 1997.]

CONCERNED CITIZENS OF LAOAG CITY, complainants, vs.
BIENVENIDO ARZAGA and ALFREDO MAURICIO, respondents.
SYLLABUS
1.
POLITICAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PUBLIC OFFICERS; PUBLIC SERVICE
REQUIRES UTMOST INTEGRITY AND STRICTEST DISCIPLINE. Public service
requires the utmost integrity and strictest discipline. Thus, a public servant must
exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the
performance of his ocial duties but in his personal and private dealings with other
people. No less than the Constitution sancties the principle that a public oce is a
public trust, and enjoins all public ocers and employees to serve with the highest
degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and eciency. In addition, the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Ocials and Employees provide that every
public servant shall at all times uphold public interest over his or her personal
interest.
2.
ID.; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER COURT
PERSONNEL; DISMISSAL OF COURT EMPLOYEE FOR BEING NOTORIOUSLY
UNDESIRABLE, PROPER; CASE AT BENCH. In reviewing the report and
recommendation submitted for the Court's consideration, we nd the observations
therein to be correct. We, nonetheless, nd the penalty recommended by the Oce
of the Court Administrator to be very light. Consequently, we adopt the
investigating judge's recommendation for respondent's dismissal from the service,
for being the "ultimate undesirable employee and a disgrace to the judiciary." By his
acts and misdeeds, respondent has undermined the public's faith in our courts and,
ultimately, in the administration of justice. The same make him unt as a court
employee. His employment must therefore be terminated at once. Court personnel
must adhere to the high ethical standards of public service in order to preserve the
Court' s good name and standing. This Court has emphasized that the conduct
required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must
always be beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility as to let them be free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary.
DECISION
PER CURIAM :
p

This administrative matter arose from two (2) anonymous letters, one dated April
21, 1994 addressed to Judge Federico A. Llanes, MTCC, Branch I, Laoag City and the
other dated April 27, 1994 addressed to Judge Manuel B. Fernandez, Jr., RTC, Branch
13, Laoag City, charging Bienvenido Arzaga and Alfredo Mauricio, both process
servers of the Oce of the Clerk of Court, MTCC, Laoag City, with inuence
peddling, drunkenness, gambling, bribery, extortion and manipulation of bonds by
using the same property for different cases.
On June 22, 1994, Judge Llanes forwarded the said letters, together with
the respondents' comments, to the Office of the Court Administrator.
In a resolution dated September 19, 1994, this Court referred the matter to
Executive Judge Wenceslao Agnir, RTC, Laoag City, for investigation, report and
recommendation.
In his investigation report dated December 16, 1994, Judge Agnir stated,
among others, that both respondents had submitted their written comments
denying the charges; that upon receipt of the complaint, he requested the local
media to announce to the public that anyone who had evidence against the two
respondents could see him; that however, after two months of waiting, nobody
came forward to oer any evidence against respondents; that he also
interviewed the employees of the City Court to verify the truth of the charges
against the respondents, but he obtained no information to give credence to said
charges.
Judge Agnir, however, reported that he received a certication from the
City Prosecutor's Oce of Laoag City, to the eect that Alfredo Mauricio was
convicted of Frustrated Murder on September 29, 1983 in Criminal Case No.
1260-XIII, but was placed on probation. Alfredo Mauricio had also been charged
with eleven (11) other criminal cases like Illegal Possession of Firearms, Grave
Slander by Deed, Grave Threats, Serious Physical Injuries, but all of these had
been dismissed.
Judge Agnir made no denite recommendation in his report, except to say
that he was leaving it to the Court Administrator to determine whether on the
basis of "such a criminal record, Alfredo 'Boy' Mauricio deserves to stay in the
service of the Judiciary."
On February 1, 1995, this Court referred the Investigation Report of Judge
Agnir to the Oce of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and
recommendation. Accordingly, the Oce of the Court Administrator submitted a
memorandum to this Court recommending that the charges against the two
respondents be dismissed for lack of merit.
After a careful examination of the recommendation of the Oce of the
Court Administrator, this Court on May 29, 1995, resolved to dismiss the charges
against Benjamin Arzaga as recommended but referred the case against Alfredo
Mauricio to Judge Agnir for further investigation relative to how said respondent
managed to be appointed to the position of process server despite a previous
record of conviction of the crime of frustrated murder. Judge Agnir was likewise
directed to conduct an inquiry on whether said respondent made untruthful
statements in his application by suppressing the fact of his conviction as well as

other criminal charges filed against him though subsequently dismissed.

In compliance with the aforementioned resolution, Judge Agnir submitted
his second investigation report dated July 21, 1995. In his report, Judge Agnir
narrated that respondent Mauricio joined the judiciary on October 4, 1990 as
Utility Worker I of MTCC, Branch 2, Laoag City. His commission was signed by
then Court Administrator Meynardo A. Tiro and certied by Chief Administrative
Ocer Adelaida Cabe-Baumann upon recommendation of Judge Manuel B.
Fernandez, Jr., then presiding judge of Branch 2, RTC, Laoag City. On May 5,
1992, respondent was promoted to the position of process server of the Oce of
the Clerk of Court, MTCC, Laoag City. His commission was signed by Romeo P. de
Leon in behalf of Adelaida Cabe-Baumann.
Judge Agnir further narrated that respondent disclosed his conviction of the
crime of frustrated murder and that he was on probation for the same in his
application. When respondent was asked by Judge Agnir why he did not indicate
that other criminal charges were led against him, he replied that the question
in the application form simply asked for conviction, not mere charges.
The Second Investigation Report also mentioned the name of two (2)
persons from whom respondent Mauricio allegedly asked favors using the name
of Judge Fernandez. The rst was Jimmy Lao, a realtor-businessman of Laoag City
who told Judge Agnir that two (2) years earlier when he had a case pending
before the sala of Judge Fernandez, respondent Mauricio approached him and
asked for two (2) tires allegedly for the car of Judge Fernandez. Mr. Lao said that
when he went to verify the request, he was not able to talk to Judge Fernandez
but a court sta member told him that Judge Fernandez was not in the habit of
asking favors from litigants and that in all probability, the tires were intended for
Mauricio's owner-type jeep which was then in the process of being assembled.
When he confronted Mauricio about it, the latter told him that he (Mauricio) was
only joking.
The second interviewee was German Reantillo, administrative ocer of the
City Engineer's Oce of Laoag City who conrmed that sometime ago he gave
Mauricio thirty (30) liters of gasoline on the respondent's representation that this
was for Judge Fernandez; that sometime later he had the occasion to mention
the matter to Judge Fernandez who denied that he authorized Mauricio to ask
gasoline in his behalf.
Both Lao and Reantillo however refused to be placed under oath or to
reduce their statements in writing because they did not wish to be involved in a
formal investigation where they would have to be confronted by respondent.
Furthermore Lao said he did not wish to incur the ire of the respondent and
that anyway he did not give Mauricio the tires.
On July 17, 1995, Judge Agnir called respondent Mauricio to another
hearing and confronted him with these new charges. Respondent denied them as
expected.
Judge Agnir further claimed that respondent is known to be a troublesome
fellow. MTC Judge Llanes even had to le an administrative case against
respondent for serious misconduct and insubordination.

Judge Agnir then strongly recommended the immediate and summary

dismissal from the service of respondent Mauricio for being the "ultimate
undesirable employee and a disgrace to the judiciary." 1 He added that he was
recommending this course of action aware of the potential danger to his person
given respondent's violent nature as documented by his criminal record. Judge
Agnir was "hopeful though that the respondent's summary dismissal will send a
chilling message to other court employees similarly engaged in nefarious
activities and unethical practices which though petty in many instances indelibly
stain the image of the judiciary." 2
Thereafter, the case was referred to the Oce of the Court Administrator
for evaluation, report and recommendation.
The Deputy Court Administrator to whom the case was assigned for review
submitted the following observations, viz.:
A careful scrutiny of the 201 File of respondent Mauricio shows that he
joined the judiciary not on 4 October 1990 as Utility Worker I but on 1
August 1989 as a Court Aide of MTCC, Branch 2 of Laoag City as a
recommendee of Judge Angelo M. Albano, MTCC, Laoag City. Respondent's
appointment was by virtue of a Supreme Court Resolution dated 1 August
1989 and his commission was signed by then Court Administrator Meynardo
A. Tiro and certified by Former Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Orlando
B. Carino and Former Chairman of the Selection Board Daniel T. Martinez.

It was also discovered that on 24 January 1990 Atty. Carino sent a telegram
to Mauricio ordering him to submit a copy of the Order placing him on
probation pending the approval of his appointment as Utility Worker I.
Accordingly respondent sent a copy of the said Order and in his 1st
indorsement dated 22 February 1990, Atty. Carino referred the Probation
Order to Atty. Ponciano R. Solosa, Assistant Director of the Civil Service
Commission Field Office for appropriate action.
Per Court Resolution dated 4 October 1990 respondent was appointed as
Utility Worker I and was promoted as Process Server by virtue of a Court
Resolution of 5 May 1992.
On 19 January 1993 Police Inspector Felizardo Ellano of the PNP-CIS
Command in Camp Capt. Valentin San Juan, Laoag City, sent a letter
addressed to the Chief Justice through the Record Section requesting that a
check be conducted on the records of Mauricio who was at that time being
charged by their Oce with the crimes of Less Serious Physical Injuries and
Resistance and Disobedience Upon Agents of a Person in Authority. Police
Ocer Ellano likewise informed the Court that the respondent has already
been charged of several oenses in dierent courts in Laoag City which
according to him was a clear showing that Mauricio is a violent man, a
habitual offender and extremely defiant of the law.
Records show that the respondent twice accomplished Personal Data Sheet
(Civil Service Commission Form 212, Revised 1982) on two (2) separate

occasions: on 5 June 1989 before his appointment as Court Aide and on 13

September 1990 prior to his appointment as Utility Worker. To both
instances, Mauricio disclosed his conviction of Frustrated Murder and the
fact that he was on probation.
The charges against respondent Mauricio for inuence peddling,
drunkenness, gambling, bribery, extortion and manipulation of bonds by
using the same property for dierent cases do not appear to have been
suciently established by clear evidence. The two (2) persons from whom
the respondent allegedly asked favors using the name of Judge Fernandez
both refused to be placed under oath or reduce their statements in writing.
But administrative charges cannot be based on mere conjecture. The
complainant has the burden of proof and such proof must be clear, solid
and convincing to compel the exercise of disciplinary power over the person
indicted.
On respondent's conviction of Frustrated Murder, there was full disclosure
of the conviction and apparently was not a legal obstacle to respondent's
appointment because he was placed on probation. Therefore, respondent's
conviction of a crime should not be taken as a basis of any administrative
action against him.
The foregoing notwithstanding we do not see any reason to disturb the
Investigating Judge's nding that respondent is a troublesome and violent
person as shown by his criminal record certied by the City Prosecutor of
Laoag City. There is therefore merit in Judge Agnir's recommendation of
immediate and summary dismissal of the respondent from the service for
being the "ultimate undesirable employee and a disgrace to the judiciary."
It is commendable that Judge Agnir has opted to resist the temptation to be
silent in the face of what he perceives to be a deleterious inuence in the
court.
Under Section 23, Rule 14 of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive
Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws "being notoriously
undesirable" is classied as a grave oense with a corresponding penalty of
dismissal, or forced resignation under Resolution No. 89-506 dated 20 July
1989 of the Civil Service Commission.
Time and again the Court has held that "A court employee being a public
servant must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in
the performance of his duties but also in his personal and private dealings
with other people to preserve the court's name and standing. Therefore, it
becomes imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to
maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice." (Paredes
vs. Padua, 222 SCRA 81).
Equally compelling is the decision of the Court in the case of Mirano vs.
Saavedra, 225 SCRA 77 which states that "The conduct and behavior of
everyone connected with the oce charged with the dispensation of justice
from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk should be circumscribed with

the heavy burden of responsibility." 3

On the foregoing antecedents, it was recommended by the Deputy Court

Administrator that respondent be declared notoriously undesirable and be
considered resigned from the service with forfeiture of leave credits and retirement
benets and disqualication from employment in the government service for a
period of one (1) year. It was further recommended, however, that respondent be
reemployed in the government service other than the judiciary.
In reviewing the aforesaid report and recommendation submitted for the
Court's consideration, we nd the foregoing observations to be correct. We,
nonetheless, nd the penalty recommended by the Oce of the Court
Administrator to be very light. Consequently, we adopt the investigating judge's
recommendation for respondent's dismissal from the service, the same being
warranted and justified by the facts attendant to the instant case.
Public service requires the utmost integrity and strictest discipline. Thus, a
public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and
integrity not only in the performance of his ocial duties but in his personal and
private dealings with other people. 4 No less than the Constitution sancties the
principle that a public oce is a public trust, and enjoins all public ocers and
employees to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty,
and efficiency. 5 In addition, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Ocials and Employees provide that every public servant shall at all times
uphold public interest over his or her personal interest. 6
By his acts and misdeeds, respondent has undermined the public's faith in
our courts and, ultimately, in the administration of justice. The same make him
unt as a court employee. His employment must therefore be terminated at
once. Court personnel must adhere to the high ethical standards of public service
in order to preserve the Court's good name and standing. 7
cdt

Time and again, this Court has emphasized that the conduct required of
court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be
beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility as to let them be free from any suspicion that may taint the
judiciary.
ACCORDINGLY, respondent ALFREDO MAURICIO is hereby DISMISSED from
the service with forfeiture of all benets and with prejudice to his reemployment
in any branch of the Government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C .J ., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr ., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno,

Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr.,
JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1.

Rollo, p. 52.

2.

Id., al 52-53.

3.

OCA Memorandum, pp. 4-5.

4.

Gano v. Leonen , 232 SCRA 98, 101 [1994]; Paredes v. Padua , 222 SCRA 81, 84
[1993].

5.

CONST. [1987], Article XI, Section 1.

6.

Republic Act No. 6713, Section 2.

7.

Chavez v. Lescano, 139 SCRA 103 [1985]; Recto v. Racelis , 70 SCRA 438 [1976].